The Times - Papers show Whyte was boss at company in Rangers takeover

[der Berliner 3,745]

No. they didn't.

 

So the admins did not sell Rangers to Sevco Scotland or the media forget to mention Sevco Scotland time and again?

 

The former would be interesting to know.

[UCF2008 0]

So the admins did not sell Rangers to Sevco Scotland or the media forget to mention Sevco Scotland time and again?

 

The former would be interesting to know.

 

From the STV article I posted earlier here is the club's response. The link to which has now been removed by the club:

 

A spokesman for Rangers confirmed that there had been a transfer of assets between one newco and a second separate newco. He told STV: "For the avoidance of doubt, Sevco 5088 Limited bought the assets of the Rangers Football Club and then transferred them to Sevco Scotland Limited so that all the assets would be in the Scottish registered company that is Rangers FC."

[Zappa 0]

The main point remains though: the admins sold the company not to "a Sevco", not to Sevco 5088, but to Sevco Scotland Ltd.. Something the media bashing Green over Whyte time and again "forgets" to mention.

 

This point does remain, but it remains sketchy and suspect. The information available from the time of the takeover states that the binding agreement was with Sevco 5088 and immediately after the creditors meeting (within hours) where the CVA proposal was formally rejected it was stated that a sale of the business and assets had been completed according to the previous binding agreement. There was apparently then an application made the following day to transfer the assets to Sevco Scotland.

 

I'm not claiming I know what the facts are here because it's as clear as mud to be honest, but it does seem as though the sale to Sevco 5088 may well have gone through immediately after the CVA rejection as per the binding agreement and that the assets were then transferred to Sevco Scotland the following day.

 

Indeed, a club statement was made at the time which specifically clarified that this is what happened, but that statement has since been removed from the club website along with almost all other club statements, D&P statements and interviews which could be regarded (or used) as evidence from the time of the takeover.

[der Berliner 3,745]

From the STV article I posted earlier here is the club's response. The link to which has now been removed by the club:

 

A spokesman for Rangers confirmed that there had been a transfer of assets between one newco and a second separate newco. He told STV: "For the avoidance of doubt, Sevco 5088 Limited bought the assets of the Rangers Football Club and then transferred them to Sevco Scotland Limited so that all the assets would be in the Scottish registered company that is Rangers FC."

 

Could it be that said spokesperson (who?) did not knew all facts then (not least as it never apears somewhere else)? As has been intimated over at FF a long time ago by people cleverer than me.

 

In any case, it is not only in the Admins' reports that we find the take-over listed, but also the listing of the Rangers International Football Club plc's - Interim Results at the London Stock Exchange. (<- click)

 

I for one know whom I would give more credit here, albeit with all the necessary caution.

 

 

Zappa

Indeed, a club statement was made at the time which specifically clarified that this is what happened, but that statement has since been removed from the club website along with almost all other club statements, D&P statements and interviews which could be regarded (or used) as evidence from the time of the takeover.

 

That happened during the change of server of the Rangers HP. I pointed actually that out to the Rangers media team. Likewise, I would assume that you will be able to get the stuff via the D&P homepage or from the net too. We saved quite a bit over at the German board too.

Edited April 16, 2013 by der Berliner

[the gunslinger 3,366]

TBKs blamed everyone but themselves.

 

miller and bill ng both blamed d@P for misinformation.

[JTP 0]

miller and bill ng both blamed d@P for misinformation.

 

Not a useful post but I completely forgot about this guy.

[UCF2008 0]

Could it be that said spokesperson (who?) did not knew all facts then (not least as it never apears somewhere else)?

 

Possibly or it could be just one of very few slip ups. You'll notice if you look back to the couple of weeks before and after the sale of assets to Sevco the wording of statements from the Green team and D&P is very carefully avoiding specifics of which Sevco purchased the assets. Even amid claims of the assets being transferred between companies for more sinister reasons, the defence from those parties avoided saying specifically that the assets had been purchased directly by Sevco Scotland. In fact, they usually just gave the reasoning for Sevco Scotland's existence instead.

 

Even if we were to assume that the assets were transferred post-sale, it would appear that D&P were then by their actions complicit in the coverup of the event. Taking this into account along with the fact that like you point out there is little in the way of evidence to suggest nevermind prove otherwise, it doesn't surprise me that the London Stock Exchange would have been given Sevco Scotland as the original purchasers.

 

The question would however remain as to whether the exclusive bidder status was somehow transferred (without any mention at all) and if not then questions could still be asked of D&P's conduct.

[simplythebest 0]

miller and bill ng both blamed d@P for misinformation.

 

I highly doubt either were serious, and I had high hopes for Ng after Frankie's correspondence.

[rbr 1,256]

Boss on RM has unearthed some interesting points on this , however as I'm on an iPad I'm not even gong to attempt to copy and paste it

[simplythebest 0]

Here is boss.

The 'dodgy' forms appointing Whyte and Earley as directors, backdated to last May, are now available to download from Companies House.

 

While checking for them, a thought passed my mind. The company was set up with one share in issue. There have been no further issues of shares (that's a matter of public record), so there is only one share in issue. There are two main possibilities:

 

1. Green owns that share. This is probably Green's position - when he buys the company from the formation agents, he would normally be appointed director and at the same time the share transferred to him. At that point, there is no requirement to file any public record, so it's impossible to be certain.

 

2. Whyte owns the share. This is probably Whyte's position. So you own a company which has a right to buy Rangers, but you see a different company actually buy Rangers and realise you are being royally shafted. Do you:

a) go mental, threaten blue murder, demonstrate the company is really yours, go to court, stop the transaction from happening etc.; or

b) do nothing for 11 months, appear with backdated documents, claim you owned the company all along.

 

The point is this: with only one share in issue, it's hard for Whyte to show he owns part of Sevco 5088 Limited - he probably either owns it all or none of it. If he owns it all, he has known since at least last July that he has been turned over but has done nothing until now. If he owns none of it, there is no problem.

 

daviecooper01, on 16 April 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

Boss - update - dated today:

 

 

16/04/2013

 

TM01

 

APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR AIDAN EARLEY

 

Thanks for that. Really interesting development. Not showing up on CH yet, but some third party providers do seem to have docs showing up before CH. I wonder whether CG or CW submitted that - we will see from the signature in due course. I also wonder whether there has been a TM01 submitted for CW too!

 

To the poster above asking about Companies House studying/approving documents before filing, the answer is no (or not really). If the document is, on the face of it, properly completed they will file it. They will not check for forged signatures etc. So CH are not saying last week's forms are true, merely that they have been submitted to CH.